Social Media

Discerning What Is Best
With Dr Rex Rogers

Two New eBooks at Amazon Kindle!

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 21 February 2023

Women and some men are posting on social media images and videos of themselves, which is predictable, but have you noticed their justifications and rationales for doing so?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #70 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Any number of trends can be identified on social media because it is a dynamic environment.

There may be good trends, of course, because human beings created in the image of God are capable of making right moral choices and doing noble things.

But human beings are also fallen, meaning we have a sin nature and are capable, in fact active, on a daily basis of making bad or wrong moral choices and doing ignoble things. That’s where some disturbing social media trends emerge relative to something now called “body image.”

When I say “social media” here, I am not alluding to pornographic subscription sites but to Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok and a few others that are readily accessible to the public including children.

It’s interesting to note the number of so-called “online influencers,” mostly women, who regularly post scantily clad pictures of themselves and seek to justify their actions by claiming they are affirming “body positivity.”

They argue that they are doing something wonderful and meaningful in the name of “female empowerment,” but basically what they are doing is demeaning themselves in order to get likes, fans, followers, and in some cases, financial reward.

I’ve mentioned before that older, now no longer top tier entertainers, work to stay relevant in social media. Since their talent is no longer in demand or perhaps they are past their creative zenith, the only way many women celebrities can get attention is to post near naked or suggestive pictures of themselves.

Some do this as a business proposition in order to market what they are wearing, like bikinis or casual wear, while others do so because it’s all they’ve got to—what was that—“stay relevant.”

To attempt to justify what they are doing and raise it to some perceived lofty level, some aging models or celebrities talk about “authenticity.” They claim they must post these pictures to be “true to themselves.” This is their “identity,” and they say everyone should “love yourself” or “find your true self.”

Some claim they post au naturel images because, somehow, this is good for their “mental health.” They say they have “overcome self-judgement” and that one should be comfortable “loving yourself in your own skin.” Some claim they are fighting the good fight against the emotional struggle of “body dysmorphia.” Others just get right to the point and declare they are “sex positive.” The new vocabulary and rationales offered for what was once considered scandalous and prurient behavior are endless.

The Women’s Liberation movement of the 1970s plowed new ground for women in society, making headway opening professional doors, lobbying for equal pay for equal work, and promoting equality for women in general. Unfortunately, radical feminists took this movement and ran with it, some ending up in an untenable hate-all-men outlook. But there are still some now seasoned warriors who just want women to be given equal opportunities in society.

More recently, the long overdue MeToo movement called powerful, immoral men to account. Some, like the infamous Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, were demonstrated to be predators and rightly sent to prison, though sadly, Cosby’s sentence was later overturned.

Others, caddish men who took advantage of their power and prestige to prey on women, men like Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Bill O’Reilly, had enough money to settle the allegations against them but still lost their high-profile media positions.

Then, MeToo began to run aground with slogans like “believe the woman,” a comment that seems just and indeed helps correct old patterns wherein women were summarily dismissed, but in actuality, “believe the woman” as an absolute elevates demography above evidence-based truth.

Result is, we have a confused public understanding of male-female relationships and social media only adds to the confusion.

Among the younger set, Generation Z now in college, as of July 2021, university athletes are now able to make financial arrangements based upon their NIL, meaning Name, Image, Likeness. This new pot of gold suddenly available to university athletes means the best known, most talented, and of course the best looking, can make a lot of NIL money. Many NIL arrangements are endorsement contracts with clothing manufacturers or other legitimate businesses. I’m not suggesting there is anything is wrong with the free enterprise of athletes making income.

But I think unregulated NIL opportunities, the transfer portal making it possible for any recruit to switch schools in a moment, and the wide-open university athletic conferences, now jockeying for television money, means collegiate sports is in for a confusing time that almost inevitably is going to result in some kind of scandal.

Remember, the love of money is the root of all evil.

Some female university athletes are already making hay based on their looks, and their willingness to post titillating videos. By far, the lead example of this is Louisiana State University gymnast, Olivia Dunne, who is now reputedly making seven figures per year for her posts.

No question she is a talented and accomplished athlete with several gymnastic accomplishments.

But increasingly, Olivia Dunne and her peers are providing their huge followings on TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram with content that pushes past simple storylines or marketing clothing into what critics say is playing into the “objectifying women” scenarios that the Women’s Liberation and MeToo Movements railed against.

In fact, older women who fought those earlier social battles, some of whom are avowed feminists, argue today’s young women are taking a backward step, undoing much of what women fought for in the 70s, including the major achievement of Title IX that prohibited sex based discrimination in school athletic programs.

The interesting comeback from the young, online influences is that while men may objectify women, the online influencer women say they are not responsible for what men think or how they behave. In other words, they push back, saying we can do whatever we want, and we have no accountability to anyone.

Maybe it all depends? It’s true, a woman cannot control how a man thinks, or if he thinks improper thoughts, it’s not her doing. On the other hand, if the woman, particularly these online influencers, post provocative, semi-clad pictures and videos intended to attract followings, can they really claim they have no responsibility? Such an argument seems a long way from the honorable women described in Proverbs 31.

This said, men also use social media to make money based upon sex appeal. They “run the gamut from gamers and fitness influencers to singers, pranksters, and even doctors.”

None of this should be surprising. Human beings tend to pervert anything we get our hands, or rather our hearts, on, including now social media. Why would we expect anything different from the world?

We should, though, be able to expect different behavior from Christians. We should not spend time on sites designed by online influencers to entice, to tempt, to draw us in. We should not emulate the world by employing the same provocative poses in images and videos—something I’ve seen younger Christians do on Facebook and other social media platforms.

Rather, we should work to proclaim the Lordship of Christ in all of life, including our social media activity. This is a worthy kind of online influence.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 15 October 2020

1--I like it, whether or not I agree, when politicians speak truth as they understand it based upon their principles, especially when what they say seems to undermine their preferred outcome, i.e., is not to their advantage. Like Walter Cronkite said, "And that's the way it is."

2--I dislike it, in fact they lose me, when politicians make statements that can easily be debunked with even the most cursory review of evidence, which they nevertheless argue because the "narrative" is to their advantage. Like Stephen Colbert said, "Truthiness - It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all."

3--I'm a staunch proponent of the First Amendment, i.e., freedom of speech, so I consider Big Tech/Social Media and Big Media's increasing censorship of information and points of view they believe is "misinformation" or "dangerous" and does not align with their version of the "publicly acceptable narrative" (e.g., earlier, views re the pandemic, now partisan politics) fundamentally un-American, Orwellian, and a serious threat to free democratic society. I say this re all points of view on the ideological spectrum.

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 08 July 2020

A recent Facebook audit comes from ongoing public pressure, not just from conservatives but from liberal civil rights groups and corporations. The conservatives tend to want more protection of free speech, and there is already a lot of evidence of Facebook or YouTube blocking content some committee determined dangerous (e.g., about C-19).

The liberals tend to want to block speech or advertising they consider hate speech or otherwise just unacceptable in terms of the latest politically correct or ideological pantheon of social crimes. It's actually the liberals putting on the most pressure right now. FB and YT have also blocked Christian content (even Prager U videos about the 10 Commandments).

How they get away with this so far is that they are deemed private enterprises and "publishers," meaning they get to determine what's on their sites. This is protected by their First Amendment rights.

But then again, they also bill themselves as "public forums" where all manner of ideas can be discussed, and if you add Google, which owns YT, FB that owns Instagram, and Twitter, which also censors tweets, you could say they're actually info monopolies. As public forums and as monopolies or nearly so on information communication, it would seem the First Amendment should apply.

So for now, Big Info Tech is clearly suppressing conservative content they don't like and not blocking enough content liberals deem censorable.

None of this is good for the First Amendment or free and pluralistic democracy.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 11 April 2020

Social media is great for relationship building but is not good at fostering critical thinking, analysis, or reasoned debate.

People post emotionally, not that this is illegitimate in itself. Emotions are genuine expressions of human feeling and as such are important. But emotions that don’t or can’t allow a focus upon the facts or science or even just another person’s point of view are ultimately not helpful.

June 2018, I wrote an article entitled, “The Death of Discussion.” This was long before the experience of the current coronavirus pandemic. I argued that “We’ve come to a point in a so-called post-truth or fake news culture (and Church?) in which polarization is so pronounced we can no longer communicate, resulting in a virtual inability to discuss, much less debate, any social-political issue without becoming defensively partisan, ideological, or upset.” This is still taking place and is now, in my view, worse than it was.

The COVID-19 crisis has pitted partisans and ideologues, Big Media coverage-qua-hype that stirs up the populace, and a long list of “experts” against one another. Social media has exploded with the same. Social media may work to alert or get out a word but is not good at encouraging adults in the room to think beyond the short-term.

I’m not saying social media is “bad” or a curse upon the land. No, in fact it gives access to people who might not otherwise have a place to express their opinion, or Yes, their feelings. What I’m saying, though, is that for good stewardship of a country or company and long-term decision-making, social media leaves a lot to be desired.

Unless you are a person with a significant following social media is limited. You post your ideas, attitudes, or feelings to basically the same audience of friends, fans, or followers day after day. Same people. If you really want to influence the body politic, post in a blog or on a website, or publish somewhere online so your content is searchable and open to the www, the “world-wide” web, not just your social media BFFs.

Social media invites off-the-cuff commentary. Nothing wrong with this per se, but it seems for many this is as far as it goes. Social media is a shoot-off-your-mouth methodology. More heat than light and, again, this approach offers little that actually informs, helps, or persuades us.

If you doubt me, post a nonpartisan comment about a current issue, maybe when the United States should attempt to reboot its economy in the wake of spring 2020 coronavirus pandemic sheltering in place orders. Then watch what happens. You’ll get emotional diatribes, ranting, partisan slants, some using insulting terms to refer to leaders on the other side, childish memes, and accusations. You won’t get much reasoned consideration. I know. I’ve tried this.

I will say that social media is a good tool to encourage connectivity with family, friends, colleagues, and new acquaintances. Various platforms like LinkedIn, Facebook, or just Whatsapp can facilitate keeping in touch with others’ lives. And this is a blessing of the Information Age.

That’s where I’ll leave this. Social media works for “social.” It does not work for informed discussion, debate, or decision-making. My advice if you need the latter? Look online for another outlet.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 24 March 2020

I've read more than my share of rants, angst, attacks, put-downs and more on my social media pages. These posts originate on both the Left and the Right and make it their purpose to pollute the air. Problem is, these kinds of posts add nothing, just more of the same.

I encourage people to post what they Think. Tell me Why you like or dislike something, Why you hold your views, and try to persuade me your view is correct.

Here's a short article with some social media recommendations on creating value-added posts.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/value-added-social-media-posts-rex-m-rogers/

I’m weary up to my ears with angry, cynical, gotcha, this-political-leader’s-latest-dumb-thing social media posts. These posts originate on both the Left and the Right, and they overrun my social media.

It’s a free country (though recently, some folks seem to want to silence anyone with whom they disagree). So, I get that people can post whatever they want. And I get that people will have differing points of view—actually, this is healthy in a free society—so this piece is not arguing for you to change your views.

But aside from this, it’s a free country for me, too, so I’m going to share a few recommendations for social media posting.

Social media posts that offer nothing but another put-down of given leaders and/or their actions, or offer another rant, or throw shade on someone, do not help me much. These posts may help the posting-person to vent, but the posts don’t develop my understanding of his or her point of view. And such posts don’t really offer any substantive ideas to persuade me toward a different view. They just express angst.

What kind of social media posts actually make impact?

Offer something original, something you think, you wrote, not just quotes from others or citations of news stories that bother you. Most of all, tell us Why.

Include not just your feelings but again – what you think– or a point of view someone else has developed that you endorse.

Periodically make a comment that is positive…about anything, i.e., find something that your political opposition has done with which you agree and affirm it. If you find this impossible, identify something else positive to say so you don’t become a curmudgeon. If all you do is cry, “Wolf,” or all you say is, “The sky is falling,” then after a while, you won’t be heard at all.

Avoid using degrading or profane languagein your posts. While this seems to be the trend of the day, even among the nation’s leaders, it doesn’t have to be ours. This recommendation is not about being a prude but about being practical. If you want to persuade people to your point of view you are more likely to accomplish this with respectful and intelligent language than the base vocabularies and insults now being spouted by many celebrities and political leaders.

Vary the contentof your posts. If you’re a political junkie, OK, nothing wrong with that, but you’ll wear your readers down and your posts won’t be read if they all sound the same. So once in a while, post about your hobby or your travels or your family, anything you think your friends and followers might find interesting.

If you implement these simple approaches to your social media posts, you’ll soon be offering your readers value added, something they haven’t heard or maybe cannot get elsewhere, and your number of followers will increase. You might even persuade them to your point of view.

Post all you want. Raise the bar with value-added commentary and make a contribution to public discourse in the body politic.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 18 January 2018

We live in a social media age. Unless you’ve chosen to live off the e-grid you’re probably participating in some kind of social media experience, like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.

Incredibly, more people are now active monthly on Facebook, about 2.07 billion, than the population of the United States and China combined. It’s a global village.

With this kind of connectivity, and with immediacy made possible by mobile devices, anyone who wants to “talk to the world” can do so in seconds by posting online. This is interesting, good in some measure, not so good in others--reason being, it’s not the content of the post but the people posting that matter. They’re the ones who are good in some measure, not so good in others.

Since the 2016 US Presidential election campaign, it seems more people (around the globe not just in the States) are posting regularly about politics, and in particular, often posting about President Donald Trump. This is occurring for many reasons—

the ease of access of social media,
increasingly divided politics, ideologically, ethnically, demographically, and otherwise,
Pres. Trump’s ongoing use of Twitter, and
the president’s persona—bigger than life, at the center of every issue whether you like him or his views, or not.

All this means more politics in social media.

One of the staples of this growing politicization of social media (Maybe we should just throw in the towel and call it political media?) are shoot-from-the-lip reaction-posts. You don’t like what’s said or happening, so you reach for your device, go online, and let it rip, posting your rant and venting your emotions without filter.

OK, if you want to rant or vent on social media, go ahead, it’s a free country, at least it’s constitutionally supposed to be (The US is experiencing an increase in individual’s or groups’ attempts to limit the First Amendment free speech of others, particularly people or groups with whom they disagree). But the problem with venting or ranting regularly is that after a while few people pay attention, other than those who already share your view. So, you’re mostly preaching to the choir. And though you may not care, you gain the reputation of a malcontent, a curmudgeon, one who “Cries wolf,” or simply an unpleasant associate.

Let me say outright: There are better ways to comment, critique, or criticize than ranting or venting. I’m not saying you shouldn’t speak. I’m saying there is a better way than politically ranting or venting. By “better” I mean more effective, more likely to reach and influence others. Isn’t that the purpose of your rant, to reach others?

With venting, maybe not. Maybe it’s just to blow off your own steam. Either way, social media is inundated with these kinds of posts and even the social media industry is beginning to consider ways to “re-socialize” social media, i.e. reduce one-n-done negative political rants.

As an aside, I’ll add that the other problem with social media posts, specifically those involving “friends,” “fans,” or “followers,” is that your post primarily reaches a subset of these people. Theoretically you can speak to the world via social media but due to complex algorithms that’s not generally how it works. Even the President’s well-known tweets reach only his followers, unless and until media quote his comments. If you want to speak into culture, win friends, and influence others, maybe you should consider launching a blog that’s available to the “world wide” web.

Now, how can we comment, critique, or criticize in an influential manner?

Check your facts. Nothing undercuts credibility more quickly than false statements—something presidential candidate Hilary Rodham Clinton and Pres. Trump have had to learn in their use of social media. Just take the time to do a little research online. If something bothering or encouraging you is indeed false, why waste time on it? If something with which you agree or disagree is indeed true and happening, then speaking up with a firm foundation of factual data reinforces your point of view.

Popping off is just popping off. We’re back to ranting and venting. Maybe it helps you feel better, so go ahead, but I recommend tossing your text after it’s written. Don't post popping off. In the pre-social media days, I used to write letters in which I dumped my arguments and feelings about organizational developments that concerned me, but then I destroyed the letters, never sending any of them, ever. Made me feel better but I didn’t spread around hastily-conceived negative thoughts. If I really had something substantive to say, I took the time to develop my argument and shared it with the right people in the right place at a later time.

Gotcha posts aren’t worth much. Other than giving you a reputation of a self-appointed watchdog with nothing of your own to contribute, gotcha posts are just jabs, more of the same, just one more chance for you to say, "Look what the bad pol has done now." For example, whatever you think of Republican or Democrat posturing or comments, constantly posting the latest perceived faux pas of the other side doesn’t change the narrative. What do you think? If you were a political leader, or in the Oval Office, what would you do? How would you suggest we encourage Middle East peace, or what policies do you support re immigration reform? So it goes. Say something meaningful. Add to the conversation. Add an alternative idea. Gotcha is old news.

Talk about issues rather than people. Focus your posts and arguments on the issue of the moment instead of adding another round of gossipy criticism of a politician you don’t like. OK, you don’t like him or her, we get that, but what do you think about the issue?

Respect others and their right to hold their views. Attacking the person(s) holding views different from your own does not advance your argument. It just lets us know you don’t like that man or woman. I’m weary of posts using terms like “moron,” “idiot,” “crazy person” to describe political leaders whose views one does not appreciate. Even if a political leader somehow deserves these appellations, what good does it do to keep labeling him/her this on social media? And do you really want to use this kind of low-level vocabulary in your political discussions?

Comment and Critique rather than Criticize. Comment is any statement, positive or negative, good or bad. Critique is analysis, which could be critical but may not be and is best based upon studied reflection and review of data. Criticizing or criticism generally implies a negative assessment, which is why the term “constructive criticism” is used to describe an evaluation that attempts to be helpful, no matter the nature of the review. Learning to offer critique that respects others and their right to hold their views, respects the democratic process, and ultimately attempts to resolve a problem is better than criticism per se that offers nothing but cutting disapproval.

Seriously consider others’ views. Before you post, comment or critique and especially criticism, give a careful look-see at others’ views. Many seemingly either/or issues are not either/or. They’re more complex than this, and frequently there are points of agreement that could further the discussion if acknowledged.

One side of the partisan aisle is not always right. You may not agree with this, but over time it is easy to document that both Republicans and Democrats, men and women, Liberals and Conservatives, Whites and Blacks, etc. etc. are at times in the wrong. So go slow when you tout loudly the sins of the other. Your turn is coming.

Keep sharing your views, including your comments, critiques, and criticisms, but do so in a way that advances our public conversations about the issues confronting us.